Let us suggest that there a “mutated” bird individual of a new kind appeared, which cannot be breed crossed with the othersBut from where then a partner for this bird will be found, as it has gone out from its existing species variety, in order to give the beginning to the new kind, unless it generates parthenogenesis’ next generation? The parthenogenesis is observed in birds.

Logically even the mutation theory(delusion) demands autogenesis.

In fact, not the mutations(as defects) are an original reason for the synthesis of more consummate genes. The transformation from sexual to parthenogenetic generation and vice versa is a secret of the godly synthesis.There are seen some parthenogenetic lizards, which can enter mate crossing with sex-reproducing their analogues. At the same time, the sex-reproducing lizards may generate parthenogenetic lines.

In the sexual reproduction, we have a collection of genes, and in the autogenetic (no clones) – selection. And this is analogous to the chemical compounds and the extraction(purification) of the substances.

I usually stay away from these arguments. For one thing, I am no evolutionary biologist, so I am very much out of my element here. But logic is logic.

There is such a thing as parthenogenesis, Alex. It’s most common for invertebrates and plants, and rare among vertebrates. Not that I’m an expert in this area, but just google "parthenogenesis" and you’ll see what I mean, or look it up in a biology textbook. As I understand it, it’s a form of asexual reproduction in a species that is (or can be) sexually dimorphic. But I do have problems with your terms and arguments, Anarees. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you are trying to argue for one thing. Do I understand your premises?

1. Mutation theory is incorrect: you seem to imply that when you say “mutation theory (delusion)”, but I can’t be certain. It may be that you hold mutation theory incorrect in the limited sense of being unable to explain speciation or evolution in general, but that you would agree that mutation can and does happen. The contention would be over the potential consequences, not over the existence of mutation.

2. God drives, or somehow uses, autogenesis to create species. Your words were “secret of the godly synthesis” and you were talking specifically about transformations between sexual and parthenogenetic reproduction, not necessarily autogenesis. Here, I confess, I’m not sure I understand you and I may be putting false words in your mouth, but that is the gist of what I thought you were trying to say.

And then there are some of your statements that are either irrelevant, it seems to me, or that I simply can’t make any sense of.

That there are lizards that can switch between sexual and parthenogenetic reproduction seems to me to be irrelevant. So what if they can? How does that say anything about the sense or nonsense of either mutation theory or autogenesis—or divine intervention if that be what you are aiming at?

And I can’t make much, if any, sense out of:

“In fact, not the mutations(as defects) are an original reason for the synthesis of more consummate genes”

or

“In the sexual reproduction, we have a collection of genes, and in the autogenetic (no clones) – selection”

In the first, I think you are trying to say that mutations are defects and cannot lead to more fit (consummate?) genes, but I’m not at all sure I understand that sentence correctly. In the case of the latter it seems as if you are contrasting the control or existence of sexual reproduction as a collection of genes as distinct from autogenesis as a selection though of what (genes, I would guess) I can’t tell.

After all that—I don’t believe the mere existence of parthenogenetic birds or lizards logically demands autogenesis, if that’s what you were arguing. I can imagine it happening by the accumulation of mutations, though I don’t know anything about the evolutionary history of parthenogenetic pathways. And even if a parthenogenetic bird could suddenly mutate into existence, what does it matter if she (for it must have been a female) doesn’t mate with males of her (old?) species? She’s parthenogenetic: she can make male gametes and/or fertilize her eggs all by herself. An animal that can’t form offspring will not contribute to the future gene pool of anything. But a parthenogenetic animal has the capacity to reproduce. I don’t quite follow you, I think.

But I guess the crux of your argument must be that parthenogenesis cannot arise by the accumulation of mutations. I disagree, obviously. That parthenogenetic animals exist, however, does not argue against mutation theory.

blcr11 wrote:I usually stay away from these arguments. For one thing, I am no evolutionary biologist, so I am very much out of my element here. But logic is logic.

There is such a thing as parthenogenesis, Alex. It’s most common for invertebrates and plants, and rare among vertebrates. Not that I’m an expert in this area, but just google "parthenogenesis" and you’ll see what I mean, or look it up in a biology textbook. As I understand it, it’s a form of asexual reproduction in a species that is (or can be) sexually dimorphic. But I do have problems with your terms and arguments, Anarees. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you are trying to argue for one thing. Do I understand your premises?

1. Mutation theory is incorrect: you seem to imply that when you say “mutation theory (delusion)”, but I can’t be certain. It may be that you hold mutation theory incorrect in the limited sense of being unable to explain speciation or evolution in general, but that you would agree that mutation can and does happen. The contention would be over the potential consequences, not over the existence of mutation....

Let discuss one by one.

Even microorganisms pass time to time from autogenesis to "bigenesis". The plants - so. Despite their normal state is autogenesis.

Extraction of clear substances is not important only in chemistry.

/The theologian Darwin knew these simple things, but hid them with a lots of words. There is an oversize motive - mammals. /

Mutations can't explain origin of new species among "strictly bigenetics".